RogueNineOne

Galax HOF is used by some of the highest end overclockers.  There was a group overseas that took a GTX 1080 TI HOF and soldered on GDDR6X or some such nonsense and made the card even better lol

The HOF obviously, then again might wanna wait a few months for the new 7nm cards.

wait until ampere

HOF (Hall Of Fame) is usually a HIGHLY binned chip.  Im sure Strix may do the same but from what I understand HOF is like the KINGPIN bins.

Yeah, that could help. Depending on how much you prefer to spend, some good options include:
TY-147: https://pcpartpicker.com/product/qMR48d/thermalright-case-fan-ty147
NF-P14S: https://pcpartpicker.com/product/8r9KHx/noctua-case-fan-nfp14sredux1500pwm
NF-A14: https://pcpartpicker.com/product/dwR48d/noctua-case-fan-nfa14pwm

The rear should be exhaust. 
Removing some of the psu shroud should help get a bit more fresh air for the graphics card. 1-2c seems like a reasonable improvement. 

Efficiency helps will having the psu run cooler and the system draw a bit less power but the difference in the electrical bill is generally very small unless you're running the system at load 24/7. A good 650w like those mentioned would be fine even with oc'ing. If you're heavily oc'ing or running a lot of other components, a larger 750w isn't much more either. 
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/v6gzK8/cooler-master-mwe-gold-750-w-80-gold-certified-fully-modular-atx-power-supply-mpy-7501-afaag-us
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/6Y66Mp/corsair-rm-2019-750-w-80-gold-certified-fully-modular-atx-power-supply-cp-9020195-na
 
Do you need an nvme ssd for any particular reason? If the programs you're using don't take advantage of the extra speed, a larger sata drive may be better instead since the practical difference in speed is marginal in most use cases. Compared to the hdd, it's not much more for a good ssd like an 860 QVO: 
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/vRWfrH/samsung-860-qvo-1-tb-25-solid-state-drive-mz-76q1t0bw
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/XfbwrH/samsung-860-qvo-2-tb-25-solid-state-drive-mz-76q2t0bw
Games are also getting larger and 500gb might not be very spacious depending on how you handle your library. 

You could get away with a much cheaper psu. For example, the MWE Gold 650 or RM (2019) 650 would both be more than enough: 
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/J7F48d/cooler-master-mwe-gold-650-w-80-gold-certified-fully-modular-atx-power-supply-mpy-6501-afaag-us
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/WxL48d/corsair-rm-2019-650-w-80-gold-certified-fully-modular-atx-power-supply-cp-9020194-na
LL's are great for their lighting options but that's about it. As far as fans go, they're not great performers due to the short fan blades. 
Do you already have some of these parts? A 1tb hdd doesn't make much sense with the amount you're spending. You could just get a large ssd instead. Is there any reason you'd need more than one drive?

You need to post the permalink and not the url.

 
The stock case fans should be plenty for most systems. Unless you're running more than one graphics card and / or heavily oc'ing, it'll probably be fine. 
You can also see the temps before deciding on whether or not to change anything. 

I 
I don't really like ultra wide and I need an IPS display since I'll be doing extensive video editing with this rig as well

https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/comparison/30d8fb0f6

1440p VA panels... 
                        VG271U P                       XZ272U P                       AG273QCX                       27HC2UR P                       VG27WQ                       EX2780Q                       AORUS CV27Q                       MAG272QP                       MAG272QR                  
 

I had a triple Asus monitor setup for years and they were all great.
 
With those specs, if you purchase a 24" 1080p monitor you're absolutely insane. With a $1400 GPU, you in no way shape or form be considering a $240 Monitor.
 
The difference between 1080p and 1440p in very, very large. I would strongly recommend a 1440p 144hz 27" minimum. But I think at your specs you should strongly consider upping your budget and getting into the ultrawide game.
 
You can spend as much as you want on a PC, but if you skip on peripherals then it's worthless.
 

With only a single 2080Ti your power consumption would be 500W or so under heavy load. Maybe 550-600W if you overclock the CPU & GPU and stress the GPU while also preforming a CPU intensive task that utilises AVX where the 9900K can peak at close to 250W when overclocked. Though while gaming you're more realistically going to be drawing around 400W or so.
 
If you're looking at the HXi models they start at 750W, which will be more than enough for your system with a single graphics card. When I checked a few days ago I think there was only $7 or so difference between the HX750i and HX850i, so either one of those won't break the bank. The HX1000i on the other hand is about $40-$50 more expensive, and the HX1200i was something like $80 or $90 more expensive [than the HX750i]. You won't be getting any benefit for having a higher wattage unit if your system doesn't need it so you'd effectively be wasting your money on those higher wattage units. Though prices can vary and I have in the past seen higher wattage units selling close to the same as the lower wattage models due to overstock caused by the mining bust (some stores stocked heaps of high wattage units in anticipation for miners but when prices crashed they were stuck with these high wattage units that 99.9% of people don't need)

So, depending on price probably the HX750i or if it's the same price the HX850i would also be fine. There's no reason to spend more money on the higher wattage 1000W or 1200W units.
 
I can see how you would believe that if you only look at misleading marketing graphs like the one that you posted...
 

See how the graph goes from 10% to 20% then 50% then 100%? It's very misleading. They use 10%, 20%, 50%, and 100% values as that is what is tested for the 80+ efficiency certification, however if they want to show off those values they should do so in a table, not in a graph, and most definitely never in a misleading graph with a misleading scale like that. I don't blame you for that graph, I blame Corsair for it since it originally came from their website and product manual, however thankfully Corsair had the sense to remove it from the website ages ago.

Here is the same graph once I've "adjusted" it back to a proper scale with 10%, 20%, 50% and 100% roughly where they should be, though this isn't entirely accurate either since there's no data points for 30%, 40%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%

 
 
Instead of looking at marketing graphs you really should look at proper efficiency testing that tests at multiple load levels, like Cybenetics efficiency testing which tests at 10% increments up to 110%.

(Source: Cybenetics)

 
And also the efficiency graph for the HX750i

(Source: Cybenetics)

 
I'm going to go with the load value of 600W since that is what you specified...
At 115V AC mains with a load of 600W there is only 0.2% difference in efficiency between the HX1200i and HX750i (91.054% vs 90.847%) [Source: Cybenetics]. That's 1.2W difference at 600W load. Over the course of 1 year, running the system at full load 24/7, that's a difference of approximately 10kWH, or around about $2-$3 varying slightly depending on electricity prices. Keep in mind you have to pay an extra $90 for the higher wattage HX1200i over the HX750i based on current prices on Newegg. So if you run the system at full load 600W 24/7 it would take you 30+ years before you start seeing a return on the higher upfront cost of the higher wattage unit.
 
 
That's not how that works. The higher wattage unit does not run cooler because it's at a lower percentage of its maximum rated load.

Basic theory: Two PSUs with 91% efficiency at 500W load. Since both PSUs have the same efficiency they are both drawing 550W AC from the mains and providing 500W to the system, with the remaining 50W being wasted as heat due to efficiency losses. Both PSUs have 50W of heat to dissipate regardless of what their maximum rated load is.
The differences start to come in to play are when in order to keep higher wattage units cool under their maximum rated load they might use a different design, use larger heatsinks, or use a fan that spins at a higher RPM or a more aggressive fan profile.

The Corsair HXi series PSUs use very good fans with a sophisticated fan controller. According to Cybenetics testing at 600W load the HX750i spins its fan at 840RPM and noise measured at 20dBa (virtually inaudible and under the sound floor of most rooms). The HX1200i at 600W load spins its fan at 750RPM with noise measured at 19dBa (virtually inaudible and under the sound floor of most rooms). Besides, at 600W load the PSU is going to be the quietest thing in the system with GPU and CPU fans needing to run at much higher RPMs to keep them cool under load.
There's not going to be any difference between the two in regards to fan noise.
 
 
TLDR; The 750W and 1200W are both the same in terms of noise and efficiency. Buying a higher wattage than you need does not make your system more efficient and it does not make it quieter.

About 550-650W should be fine. What model you should buy depends on what's available and the pricing. Whether or not you should care about the efficiency depends on the electricity price, how you will use your PC, and the PSU pricing. Obviously running it idle consumes less power than mining on it.

The 850 would be fine for sure but, what do you plan on doing on the system? Depending on where your power draw is going to be most of the time if power efficiency is something you might want to consider most PSU are the most efficent at 40-50% load. You system full load will probably draw around 600W assuming you OC the gpu and CPU. So you would want to be in that 40-50% load range. IF you don't care about $30-40 extra on you power bill a year then 850w would be more then enough to handle your system under full load conditions.  
 

It doesn't work like that.
 

A 1080p, high refresh rate (144hz+), G-sync/freesync, low response time monitor sounds like what you're after. Specifically a 'smooth' gaming experience would be found at FHD. 1440p on the other hand, is demanding at times depending on the graphics setting.
Literally yesterday I upgrade from 1080p 60hz to 1440p 144hz G-Sync. I'm in love. But my poor 7 year old PC is however not! Haha
Just takes a lot to more power than I can offer at the moment.
 
As far as your bottleneck is concerned and as far as I know. 1080p would simply just not push your GPU to the max for the most part. Not exactly a bottleneck but just a reserve of processing power you won't be using. 1440p would use all that power most the time during gaming. It would look crisper but not always smoother being it that it would draw more demand from your card, potentially due to lower frames.
 
Hope that helps in some way.

the fhd one should be fine

the monitor "bottlenecks" in the sense that your GPU will be capable of outputting more frames (or resolution) than the display offers. in a sense this is a good thing.
 
sort of a comparison.. say you're choosing what car frame to combine with what engine. if you use the frame of a smart car and a big "patrioticly american" 5 liter V8 engine, you will never be in a situation where the engine cant provide enough power for the task.
 
to bring that analogy back to your specific question, the V8 engine is way overkill, but that "overkill" in the computer world can be "solved" by just adding more graphical fidelity. just about any game has a section in its graphics settings (or graphically enhancing mods, etc.) that allow you to go full ridiculous mode. anti-aliasing all the things gets rid of extra GPU horsepower faster than you can imagine.
 
also, having GPU headroom essentially implies that you'll be maxing out the settings in upcoming games for longer, than if you were right on the edge of "running max settings" today. people tend to forget that as time goes on, games become more graphically demading surprisingly quickly.
i run into this a lot, with my GTX 970 i'm starting to notice that the jump from windowed 1080p (how i usually run games on my 1440p panels) to fullscreen 1440p is starting to weigh very heavily in the graphics settings i can run on newer titles.
 
in a sense, given that your cpu can keep up with the game's code, there's x parameters to balance out:
- resolution
- target framerate
- graphics settings
- GPU's capabilities
 
where ofcourse, resolution and target framerate depend on your monitor.
if the GPU's capabilities are much higher than you are currently using, you can either get a better display, or bump graphics settings. if you cant meet your target framerate, you either upgrade your GPU, or lower your graphics settings.

Generally, 1440p is recommended for most people because you can get closer to the extra sharpness of the 4k (which in turn, allow you to get a bigger monitor) but still easy to drive for a "high frame rate experience"
 
Personally, 60 fps is more than enough but for a 24 inch display, 1080p is more than enough. It's just that if all you want is to drive a 1080p 144hz panel, there are many far cheaper options that you can take instead of a 2080ti (and possibly for 5+ years and more as well.)
 
Generally speaking, a monitor can't bottleneck your display, it's CPU that does that. Although one advantage of getting a high end card for a 1080p resolution is that, you will probably be able to game on the highest setting and still get a 144 fps for a long time, very long time. It's also a nice option if you want to upgrade to a higher resolution in the future (8k gaming anyone?)

as long as it got high refresh rate it will be smooth